Good for you Erica, and it's your risk to take, with your own money and time. Congrats; I wish you well. As far as military bases are concerned, they must locate in places of risk when necessary, and are an acceptable calculated risk for federal taxpayers money. The businesses that HAVE to be close to the water - that's their problem, and their expense; they, like Erica, may feel free to pursue any ventures they wish, at their own risk. If your port areas are your concern, you have a state government; use it, use your own taxes for your own state. In terms of casinos - get real, they can afford to be wherever they want. In terms of the other things you said, it still does not make sense to rebuild in an area prone to repetitive destruction. I never suggested that everyone should move because they MAY be in harm's way, I simply suggest that rebuilding a devastated area IN HARM'S WAY AGAIN does not make economical sense. It's a great emotional issue, but as a practical one it's a non-issue.

.ps Mary, glad you have elevation there; didn't seem to help, though.

So, where do you live, Joe? Fair's fair...how about giving us down here a chance to critique where you choose to live? You seem to be very receptive to the notion of abandoning large geographic areas and entire communities of OTHER people's homes in the interest of "economical sense", even though this is the first time a disaster of this magnitude has happened here in the entire 500+ years of recorded human (European) habitation and it could be 500 more years or longer before it happens here again. Using your rationale, the population would have to keep retreating from all natural disasters, abandoning huge areas, not rebuilding anywhere that was destroyed, until we are all stacked eight-deep on top of each other. Sounds like a "Sierra Club" conspiracy to me.

I think the media has focussed on New Orleans because they still have hotels and fancy restaurants and the French Quarter was not even affected. The Mississippi Gulf Coast was totally destroyed and the media (most of them) are too whimpy to actually stay there for any amount of time to actually do any reporting on the cities and towns on the Coast. They can just stay in New Orleans and the French Quarter and listen to Nagin whine and complain because that is easier. Who wants to get sand in their shoes and have to listen to hammers when they can listen to the Blues? I think the media just get their news from each other and from rumor and their "reporting" is just passing on what they have already heard from an old newsreel.

I would like to ask Joe, since he is responding to remarks, about whether or not ALL coastal areas should be similarly abandoned. How about Florida? Georgia? The entire Eastern Seaboard? Or is it just the Mississippi Gulf Coast, which (as it was pointed out) is quite a bit above sea level?

Erica brought up Stennis. Stennis Space Center was built in its location due to its access to the Pearl River, thus making it easier for rocket engines to be brought there for testing. Over the course of time, new tenant activities have been brought there. The National Data Buoy Center. The Naval Oceanographic Office. Several branches of the Naval Research Laboratory. The EPA has a small office there, as does USGS. All staffed by government employees, many who are not from the area, and would not have come here were it not for this job, a job for which they have been trained.

It would be ridiculous of me to say that, by building Stennis and allowing these activities to occur, the US Government had put people in harm's way.

No less ridiculous than to say to just abandon it all, however.

This rebuilding will happen, with or without Joe. Either Joe can help, or Joe can just go off and yell in the wilderness while South Mississippi continues to recover and rebuild.

How do you want to spend your energies, Joe?

Now now, Mike, you are not supposed to attack individuals here. I figure you would like to indulge in a character assasination, but that is not what this forum is for. I have a right as a taxpayer to help determine where my life's blood is spent. And I still see no economic sense in building things back with taxpayers money that would be better spent helping to restart lives elsewhere. Good luck; with that attitude, you'll need it.

Where I live is not relevant; where you live is not relevant either, unless your living there costs me and fellow taxpayers to carry part of your financial burden. If you want to build there, I never said don't do it; I said don't expect taxpayers to repeatedly bail you out. Perhaps there will never be another disaster there, but I'd prefer if you'd bet your money on that, and not mine.

Does anybody know what portion of "my tax money" is going to Katrina recovery? $1/person? $100? 50 cents? Just curious because people sure do get fired up about it.

I agree that Joe is entitled to his opinions, and he has been polite with his comments which is a nice change. I still say that it will cost the taxpayers more to help us restart lives elsewhere than "repeatedly bailing us out". If Joe is serious, then he needs to talk to his congressmen. And do a cost analysis.

Were we bailed out during Camille? I wasn't born yet, and am not a native. Just curious about the nature of repeatedly getting bailed out.

Some specific responses for Joe: For the State to handle the port area - that assumes that federal money was used to rebuild the port area. Is that the case, or did the ports have insurance? If it's all going to be the State's responsibility, then why are we a nation? Why not make each state sovereign?

For the casinos to relocate - if the casinos could go wherever they wanted to then don't you think they'd be more common than WalMarts?

And so on - I have better things to do with my time than argue something that is such a "non-issue". When you've decided it's better to pay me the $200K to buy me and my family out of the coast than to give me the $5K I've gotten from FEMA and the loan of a $20K trailer, then we can talk.

In the meantime: www.mississippibelieveit.com

I'm not attacking anyone, Joe...the Sierra Club remark was sarcasm, and I'm just disagreeing with you and refuting the content of your previous posts as baseless. Just expressing my opinion, in the spirit of a free forum. If you take that as a personal attack that's your problem. You have stated "relocate those folks and industries" and are complaining that you don't see the economical sense in rebuilding areas that may or may not be devastated again, and don't want to see your tax dollars used to that purpose. I'm countering your position with my own; you have not "repeatedly" bailed any of us out with any of your mighty tax dollars- you're acting like we live here with the intention of having our homes destroyed every few years, just so we can 'git some more of dat guvment money'. Like I said before, this is the first time in recorded history this area, and I'm talking about South Mississippi, NOT New Orleans, has been so devastated and in need of federal money to rebuild. (Yes I remember Camille; Camille did not destroy nearly the amount of infrastructure or homes that Katrina did). Since you're not being forthcoming about where you live, that begs the question "have any of MY tax dollars been used to rebuild YOUR community after a disaster?" I further counter that relocating industry and people away from shorelines is unfeasible as well as counterproductive, as the amount of money necessary to complete this massive relocation would be prohibitive, much more than the pricetag of 10 Katrinas. 50% of the nation's population lives within 75 miles of an ocean...are you in that number, Joe? Do they all need to move, or are you advocating relocating just Mississippians? Would tax dollars be used to compensate the people and businesses losing their property, homes and buildings who would be relocated? No? Do you expect them to pick up and walk away from their homes and communities just because Joe from Not Relevent, USA thinks they should? The Federal Gov't has tried relocating people as a matter of convenience before, ask the American Indians how that idea panned out. I'm sorry you don't like my attitude, but it's the direct result of reading and responding to posts such as yours, although to your credit you have refrained from namecalling and inflammatory remarks.

Well folks, you have judged and juried me. Congrats. Hope it helps you.

Thanks,

Joe

Sorry Joe. Didn't mean to be too harsh, but maybe I got carried away. All of the questions in my previous post are genuine, not sarcastic. And I am spending too much energy on this board, and I got a bit frustrated at the end of my post.

I did try to figure out the cost per taxpayer and I think that the money allocated (not spent) comes out to around $1000 per taxpayer. My next questions are - how much to LA and how much to MS? Not to get into the MS vs NO argument, but they are two different situations. New Orleans is unique unto itself as a city built below sea level, while the MS gulf coast is representative of the gulf coast and east coast, in that solutions here should also be applied elsewhere. I digress. My other question is how much money is getting pocketed and how much is getting to the ground. (Maybe from the remote taxpayer's point of view this is irrelevent.)

I think Joe asks a valid questions, but I don't think
he was much interested in our answers.

Additionally his email address seems to point him to
a state agency in Maryland. I dunno. At least I
post on my own dime.

What we've spent in three months alone in Iraq to "bring democracy" would have rebuilt Mississippi and Louisiana. I'd rather my tax money go to America, a democratic republic, than Iraq, which will never be that. Come election time, I'm voting and maybe my vote will be counted. Hope so. Maybe we need to spend money in the U.S. to be sure we are STILL a democratic republic. Let the folks in Iraq step up and see to themselves. It's been four years, hasn't it since our mission was accomplished?

Yes, M, I noticed that about Joe's email address too. I also noticed all of his emails are written between 9:00 and 5:00, Monday thru Friday. You don't think a government employee who's concerned about how his tax dollars are being spent down here is sitting around on the government's time, drawing a salary off us taxpayers, telling us how we are wasting HIS money, do you?

I was indeed interested in the answers; I argued the points found therein, but found no true challenge to my ideas. Thank you to those who tried to rise above the emotional side of the situation to add some ideas of their own. Nice to see that SOME folks doesn't indulge themselves in personal attacks.
I never advocated abandoning anyone, just suggested that it was ill-advised to restore things in areas proven prone to natural disaster BECAUSE no matter what, when the next catastrophe occurs the residents will still expect me to dole out more in taxes. I have seen the houses built with gov't funds in Homestead right back on the beach after H. Andrew, and been to Mississippi valley in areas where homes were rebuilt right behind levees that had already failed.
And, I post from here because it's my official address; I pay for the address, the ID costs me, no one else. I post on my own dime, and on my own time (during lunch and breaks) if it is anyone's business.

Thanks all,

Joe

I helped in recovery efforts on the Miss. coast. After being there and seeing what this place has to offer and how wonderful the people are ---- I will help build it back. Thanks for all the comments to that purpose, just wanted to have them out there in black and white for everyone to read. I hope that anyone thinking things should not be rebuilt will remember that when a disaster happens where they live. Maybe you better start checking out other places to move and you will need to have a job lined up in advance.

Joe seems rather confident that the Mississippi Gulf Coast will be destroyed again before long (say, within his lifetime). Even though this was a "500 year storm" or "1000 year storm." As a reminder, Bay St Louis has never flooded in recorded history--until August 2005. So tell me, Joe, what do you think are the odds of another disaster hitting New York City--natural or terrorist? I hope I never see that happen again, but clearly there is some risk associated with living there, or Washington DC...or what about an earthquake in California? After all, there already was one just 100 years ago...Presumably, you would advocate that these cities also be left to their own devices in the event of another disaster. Or would you? Do tell us. Is the Mississippi Gulf Coast just as deserving of population and industry as the rest of the country? Or do you consider a hurricane do be a different KIND of risk perhaps?
Oh, Joe, I see that tropical storm Ernesto is poised to cross over Maryland. I hope that you don't have your roof damaged or any flooding, but then again, on the Atlantic seaboard I suppose you knew the risks, yes?
Should we expect our government to help in the rebuilding of a disaster area? I say yes, if for simply moral reasons, though I suspect the economics would also support it. We can debate about what rebuilding means, and how to mitigate future risk, but I don't think it's right to simply abandon a town, city, or region. What's our disaster today might be yours tomorrow. The government has already set precedent in assisting in recovery, and I expect it to continue here in BSL/Waveland. You might feel differently, but I bet you'd come around if your city was wiped out too.

And by the way Mike, this is the third personal attack on me from you; please find something better to do with YOUR time.

Thanks to (almost) everyone else,

Joe

Okay, Joe. I give. You appear to be a nice enough guy even if you do seem to have a little persecution complex. Not an attack, just an observation. I didn't think I was out of line and I don't think I attacked you but I will admit my last comment was a little snide. I would like to extend an apology to you, sincerely. You have been quite a gentleman, and though I do not agree with the content of your posts, you have articulated them in a nonconfrontational way. We here at 'ground zero' tend to be a little defensive and easy to rile, as we've been enduring a lot of namecalling and attacks questioning our motives, integrity, work ethic and intelligence. You have not engaged in that, however.
This is why I do not agree with you. The main theme in your posts is to relocate populations and industry from areas repeatedly devastated by disasters so tax dollars are not used over and over again to the same purpose of rebuilding the same area. In my reply, I countered that this area, the three coastal counties of Mississippi, have not been "repeatedly" destroyed. Hurricane Camille in 1969 caused extensive damage I concede, but not anywhere near the massive scale of Katrina. The Mississippi coast was certainly not destroyed. I also said that the cost of such an exodus would be astronomical, much more than the pricetag of rebuilding, as people and businesses cannot be expected to walk away from their homes and property without compensation, and the only place for that compensation to come from would be the Federal Gov't.
The Federal Gov't has accepted the task of rebuilding disaster areas. The responsibility used to fall on private relief agencies and local governments but after a hurricane hit Long Island NY in 1938, killing hundreds, causing massive damage and overwhelming the local gov'ts and relief agencies much like Katrina did to us, FDR mandated that all future disasters would be managed by the Feds as part of his "New Deal", employing out-of-work Depression manpower in the rebuilding. That's how it's been, since 1938. Taxes are a constant; they do not fluctuate in response to years with many or few disasters or expenditures. If the taxes collected are not spent for the purpose for which they were budgeted, like disaster relief, the surplus is re-allocated to other agencies. If the taxes collected are insufficient to fund the purposes to which they are allocated, deficit spending ensues. So, my point is the taxes to which you allude are only partially paying for the rebuilding effort here...the rest is falling on the future tax revenues from our children and grandchildren in the form of a Deficit IOU we are all leaving for them to pay.

To all the people who think that the citizens of the coast should just move because the coast is prone to hurricanes and flooding.
Do you even have a clue about what it feels like to lose your entire hometown, everything you know, everywhere you have ever been, your favorite places, all of your memories, to have everyone you know be scattered throughout the U.S. and to not know if those people you went to high school with are even alive? I know how that feels. Many of us on the coast know how that feels. And its just so sad to me that all you people can do is complain that your tax money goes toward rebuilding someone elses hometown. YOU PAY TAXES EITHER WAY! Your taxes arent being raised for us. What if it were you who was being told to move away from your town,and that Its your own fault that this happened? Could you do it?

If you had read all of the post (Scott), you'd see that I did lose everything in a disaster, and relocated where it is safer. Whatever your opinion of Maryland's relative safety, it is safer than where I was.
And, I never advocated abandoning anything, I simply suggest that money would be better spent elsewhere besides a high risk area - and yes, your area is a whole lotta high-risk. Spend your money there, if you wish, and good luck to you.
I have sent money for relief, and I have precious little to spare; and I have watched my tax dollars rebuild in ill-advised places (READ THE POSTS). I came looking to see if there was any practical response to my concerns. I have received a lot of emotional baggage instead.
Lastly, since the only responses that are coming in now seem to be attacks on me personally, I shall bow out of this lynching, I mean, conversation.

Thought this was America, land of freedom of speech

Keep the faith,

Joe

I think what I primarily dislike about Joe's postings is that there's that usual undercurrent of "you the makers of bad decisions" vs. "me the taxpayer" running through his messages. Like those in MS don't pay taxes. Additionally, where he lives is indeed relevant to the debate. One can think of it as fair disclosure to give his arguments some degree of credibility. Of course now that we know it's Maryland, we can point out the occurrence of Hurricane Isabel and the damage it did to Virginia and Maryland (it, for instance, flooded the US Naval Academy), and apprise him to the fact that he is not immune either to nature's whims, and perhaps suggest that he relocate to some less-hurricane-prone state.

Finally, I thought Erica did a great analysis picking apart Joe's arguments, yet Joe just raised his hands and declared himself the winner. The equivalent of "I'm taking my toys and going home."

The Federal Government didn't build NO the first time: The people did. If the people want NO back, they will have to do it. It will be rebuilt the same way it was built the first time: Little by little, over some time.

The people on the Gulf Coast have hurricanes almost every year, it just so happens that the largest population of Government freeloaders, living in government housing, eating government cheese finally had to think and work for themselves and they couldn't handle the job. Keep up the good work Waveland, Mobile loves you.

Joe mentioned that Keesler has valid reasons to stay on the coast. I'm guessing that he is saying that the location of Keesler is necessary for national security, and thus the cost of repairing the base is a justifiable expense.

Keesler is an air force base - it needs runways, not water access. Of all the businesses I mentioned, Keesler is the easiest to relocate away from the coast. They choose not to presumably because the cost of repairing the base is more economical than relocating it, even with the risk of future hurricanes. The water based businesses would have a much harder time trying to relocate and without federal funding would probably just have to shut down. Or they would shut down if all the workers left, as Joe is suggesting. Either way, this would not be good for taxpayers.

I have a question for Joe - when you relocated after losing everything, did you sell your house/land? Because that would not be an option for us if the coast was to be abandoned.

I have been looking at Joe's questions as retoracle and as what we should plan to do different (if anything) for future disasters. One year post-Katrina is too late to do things different on the Gulf Coast. It's not fair for the government to tell us to rebuild and move out of our FEMA trailers, and then tell us to relocate. Nor is it a smart use of taxpayer money.

I welcome the dialog on this thread - but I think it's time for some facts on why we should abandon the coast - not just statements saying that we will get hit by another Katrina.